Today’s GOP: Finding Its Way Outside the Echo Chamber

These days, the favorite pastime of commentators right and left is psychoanalyzing the troubles of the Republican Party.  There’s lot being written out there, and, as you might expect some of it is good, while a lot of it is bad (incidentally, I find the mix to be about 15/85 or so…).

Yesterday I read what I think is a particularly insightful piece on what I believe may be the root of the GOP’s political problems, penned by former Representative Joe Scarborough and titled  Tearing Down the Conservative Echo Chamber.  Here’s an excerpt:

After Chuck Todd concluded that Republicans are afraid to leave the safe confines of conservative media outlets, I explained that such a response was short-sighted. After all, it was the Conservative Entertainment Complex that led Republican thought leaders, grass-roots activists and even the presidential candidate himself into believing that a GOP victory was imminent on Election Day. The Romney team was isolated so deep inside this conservative media bubble that they continued to believe victory was theirs well into the evening.

That embarrassing political tale proved that conservatives had finally become what they had once mocked: an insular movement so lost in its own echo chamber that it rarely made contact with those who didn’t share their world view. This is, of course, the same trap that liberals fell into in Manhattan newsrooms and on college campuses throughout the 1960s and 70s during the rise of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the Silent Majority. And yes, there was a silent majority that liberal newspapers and TV anchors were blind to for the better part of a generation.

. . .

Why is Rush Limbaugh batting one for six in presidential races? Why is Fox News one for five? Perhaps it is because two decades later, what many of us once considered to be an important balance to left-wing media bias have become the only outlets conservative politicians and thought leaders consider legitimate. That has proven to be a terrible calculation.

This assumption has now become so widespread on the right that any news analysis or media poll that runs counter to Republican interests is dismissed by the right as biased and irrelevant. This mindset took firm hold in 2012 so that the echo chamber syndrome that once made fools of left has now come back to undermine the right. Not only does this approach distort political reality by only reinforcing pre-existing worldviews, it also stifles intellectual debate inside the party. This in turn creates the kind of stale political environment that has been criticized of late by conservative thought leaders like Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz and Pete Wehner. Mr. Wehner wrote a column today in “Commentary” calling for the “intellectual unfreezing” of the right.

The GOP talks to itself too much, and therefore ends up confusing means and principles and taking all of its ideas too seriously.  Within the party, you have the national level equivalent of a dominant party state primary, where candidates struggle to outdo each other in consistency to principle.  And so, as I’ve written elsewhere, every little political fight is converted into a must-win battle to the death over fundamental principles.  The Grand Old Party is ossifying, becoming inflexible and unwilling (seemingly almost unable) to creatively apply its principles to changing conditions and political realities.

And the casualties?

Diversity of thought and viewpoint.  Creativity and solutions.  Hard-headed, realistic thinking (the very thing Republicans have always prided themselves on).  Expansion of appeal.  And, ultimately, elections and influence.

Today, we have a Republican Party that seems trapped by the very principles underlying its extraordinarily important contributions to government over the last 150 years.  It single mindedly pursues a romantic version of its own ideal, at almost all consequences.  In a way, the GOP has become it’s own version of the emotional bleeding hearts it derides among Democrats.  Instead of healthcare and welfare, it’s no taxes, absolute freedom from regulation and gun rights.  The party of clear-eyed realists has become the party of emotional originalists — so emotionally committed to an inflexible variant of realism that it’s ability to act in all but the most favorable circumstances is paralyzed.

The good in the GOP is still there.  It’s message of limited government is just as important as it has always been, if not more so.

I’m a Republican because I believe in the GOP’s core message of the importance and practical reality of limited government and financial responsibility.  I believe it is a message suited for the most pressing challenges facing today’s America.  We need to GOP to break out of its echo chamber, take a clear assessment of our situation and its political realities, and get back to being the GOP again:

As much as at any time in recent history, America needs a strong, vibrant party on the right to speak for the civilizing ideal of limited government. Barack Obama has put in place an agenda of unreconstructed progressivism that is at war, not only with Reaganism, but also with Clintonism. He has exacerbated a massive fiscal imbalance, added a poorly designed entitlement that further destabilizes the health sector, and sounded an uncertain trumpet of global leadership. If Republicans urgently need to recalibrate, and they do, it is because the stakes are so high.

Among some party loyalists, there is a natural tendency to maintain that the GOP is simply suffering from a “communications problem,” that if only Republicans spoke more loudly, more insistently, and with greater purity and passion, they would broaden their appeal and proceed to sweep national elections. But that counsel, appealing as it might be to a shrinking segment of the electorate, is surely not adequate to present circumstances. More is needed than pumping up the volume.

Intellectual honesty is the first requirement of self-renewal. Republican problems are not superficial or transient.

For the GOP to revivify itself and enlarge its appeal, Republicans at every level will have to think creatively even as they remain within the boundaries of their core principles.

Election 2012: Morning After Thoughts on the National Election

Has the Republican Party lost its way?  Did it get beaten so badly because of Tea Party craziness?  Or was it, yet again, too moderate?  Did it get beat because it’s party of angry old white men?  What lessons should the GOP take away from this drubbing?

Here are some of my brief thoughts.

(1) This was not that much of a drubbing.  It was predicted to be a close election.  It was a close election.  The country remains evenly split.  Republicans and Democrats should both keep that in mind.  Enough of the American electorate responded to President Obama’s primary message, which was, “better me than him,” for him to win.  Certainly not a mandate for four more years of the same.

(2) Candidates, candidates, candidates!  Right now, the GOP has a problem with its candidates, and I’m not talking Mitt Romney.  Democrats picked up seats in the Senate due to some incredibly inept Republican candidates, not a Democratic groundswell.  Whatever the reasons — whether it’s Tea Party extremism or the party getting too comfortable with certain seats, I’m not sure.  But the GOP has lost too many races that it should have won over the last 4 years.

(3) Despite the close election, Republicans do have a serious issue with minority appeal and demographic realities.  As a result, I suspect we’ll finally see bipartisan immigration reform before 2014.  However, Republicans have lost ground on the issue that’s going to be hard to make up.  They really need to do some serious outreach.  There are Hispanic voters that would fit well in the GOP, but it’s going to take time, words, and action to make them feel comfortable enough to join up or come back.

(4) Republicans need to make peace with the idea of serious healthcare reform.  Obamacare isn’t going away; there will be no repeal.  It was ultimately a losing wedge issue this time round, it will be more so in future years.  The other thing about the Republican stand on healthcare is that it hurts the party’s minority appeal.  The issue going forward becomes how to mitigate the negative impacts, of which there will be many. The GOP needs a serious alternative healthcare approach.  Now!

(5) The GOP foreign policy does sound like the 1980s part II.  Although I don’t believe for a second that Mitt Romney really conceived of Russia as the United States’ primary foreign policy threat, the GOP needs a foreign policy that is more than Israel, Iraq, + military spending.

Before my fellow Republicans despair that we’re entering a new era of Democratic dominance and all is lost, let’s keep in mind one thing: The Democrats have their own problems.  Pretty big problems.  In his effort to win this election, President Obama repeatedly villainized wealth and openly engaged in the type of class warfare we haven’t seen since before Reagan.  I think some damage was done to the Democratic Party as a result.  President Obama and Congressional Democrats have some time to try and rehabilitate their image.  An improving economy will help.  The significance of the Democratic “firewall” of rust belt swing states is also subject to coming demographic realities.  Continued unconditional support for unions is going to hurt elsewhere and the political benefits will be reduced as the rust belt becomes less electorally significant.  Democrats cannot continue to offer, as their only solutions for an obvious entitlement crisis (1) reduced military spending, and (2) more entitlement programs.  Both parties need course corrections.

Finally, let me wax philosophical on a couple things.  First, the Tea Party.  My few regular readers will know that I’m no great fan of the Tea Party.  But for me, the problem with the Tea Party has always been about the penchant for constitutional politics, not the stances on the major issues of our time, which are debt and entitlement reform.  The Tea Party energy is a positive thing for the Republican Party; it just needs to be re-directed to where it counts.

Second, Mitt Romney.  I was a Jon Huntsman supporter during the primary.  I still like Huntsman.  But I like Romney as well, and I’ve always thought he would be a tremendous President.  I think that Romney represented Republicans well.  I think he represented the Mormon Church well.  I think the door is now wide open for a Mormon President — of any political persuasion.  Mitt ran for office with a deck stacked against him in many ways.  Evangelicals were suspicious of his religion.  Republicans were suspicious of his record.  Democrats attacked his wealth.  If he flip-flopped to navigate the minefield, I forgive him.  He did a good job.

Anyway, my random morning after thoughts on the national election.  Utah thoughts coming soon . . . .

Fighting the Last War and the Politics of Diminishing Returns

Bear with me, as I’m about to get a bit philosophical and abstract…

So here we are again, engaged in a political contest that, nearly everyone agrees, is the most important of our lives.

Barack Obama wants to turn America into Greece, while Mitt Romney wants to force us back to the Gilded Age.

And the American Experiment hangs in the balance.   Duh, duh, duh, dum!

It’s all been done before, and, I’m sure, it will all be done again.  While the details change according to the backgrounds, strengths, and vulnerabilities of the candidates, the fundamental themes never do.  Republicans want to reduce job-killing and incentive-sapping taxes and regulations, while Democrats want to expand access to the social safety net.

[Continue Reading...]

Caucus Night is Coming! Let’s Make the Best of It.

Utah’s bi-annual precinct caucus nights are fast approaching.  Democrats will hold their precinct caucuses on March 13, 2012, at 7:00 PM, while Republicans will hold their caucuses two days later on March 15, 2012, also at 7:00 PM.  The Democrats have announced their meeting locations, Republicans plan to announce their early next week.

I’ll add my voice to the chorus of people urging their friends and neighbors to make all efforts to attend and be involved.

The importance of attending your caucuses cannot be overstated if you want your voice heard in Utah politics during the next two year.  For better or for worse  (and regular readers of this blog know that I have serious misgivings about Utah’s caucus system), your precinct caucus — not the November election — is where politics happens in Utah.

Why?

Because, in Utah, politics is dominated by the Republican Party and the convention system.  More than 3/4 of the time statewide, the Republican candidate — and it can be pretty much any Republican candidate — defeats his or her Democratic opponent.  This means that in most districts in Utah, an election is, for all intents and purposes, over once the Republican candidate is chosen.  And Republican Party candidates are usually (though not always) chosen at the party convention or in special elections to fill vacancies.  And the only people allowed to vote at those conventions or special elections are Republican Party delegates, who are selected once every two years on precinct caucus night by the people who happen to show up there.

Delegate, or Not?

Being elected as a delegate (especially a Republican Party delegate) in Utah is a bit like winning a political lottery.  There are only 3,500 positions statewide to be filled by all registered Republicans in the state.  Since you are part of the elite group of people who determine the fate of candidates for public office, your representatives (and aspiring representatives) pay close attention to you.  They’ll give you personal phone calls.  They’ll invite you to exclusive “delegate only” lunches, dinners, and cottage meetings.  They’ll provide personal answers to your questions. They’ll respond to your emails.  They’ll address your concerns.  They’ll write you letters and send you written explanations of their positions on issues.  They may even drop cookies or other treats by your home at Christmas time.

And you’ll be one of the select group who decides whether they stay in politics or go home.  Don’t like the way they voted on a pet issue?  Rather than being only 1 of 2.8 million Utahns, or even 1 of 37,000 members of a legislative house district, you are, at most, 1 of 3,500, and may be, in many cases, 1 of 100.  You have super-voting power.

Whet your appetite, yet?

In case you need more encouragement to show up, here’s the bleak alternative.  If you don’t show up to your precinct caucus meeting, politics happens without you.  Delegates will be elected whether you are there or not.  You won’t know who’s really representing you when it comes to choosing party candidates, because no one will bother to tell you.  And your voice won’t be heard in your party’s choice of candidates for two more years.  Chances are the only thing you’ll hear from candidates for election over the next two years are irrelevant attack ads in general elections where the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  And we all know what we (non-delegate types) hear from candidates after they’ve been elected . . . .

Some History, and an Exhortation

Here’s what has tended to happen in the past.

Attendance on caucus night has been sparse, and has been skewed toward excessively passionate politico types who run either (1) because of a single pet issue that they are passionate about, or (2) in order to get a specific person elected the following November.  Rarely do you hear anyone on caucus night talk about their desire to represent their friends and neighbors, instead, they talk about their personal political philosophy and goals for Utah and the United States.  And it’s even rarer for a delegate to actually take the time to bother to (1) ask their constituents how they feel about particular issues, or (2) bother to explain to their friends and neighbors how they voted on specific questions or candidates.  People who are not delegates feel totally disconnected from the political process, and no wonder.

There are lots of good things about Utah’s caucus system.  But its flaws are amplified by the lack of participation from average Utahns.  And the disconnection it engenders further erodes Utah’s abysmal voter participation levels, which are already beyond unacceptable.

I think our situation — when it comes to electoral politics, representation, and participation — in Utah is desperate.

We desperately need people to run as delegates who are serious about their obligation to represent their neighbors.  We desperately need people to run as delegates who are not political operatives coordinated by a specific campaign.  We desperately need people to run as delegates who will keep their friends and neighbors connected to the process by seeking out their opinions and making sure their voting record is available for review.  We desperately need people to run as delegates who will decline invitations to delegate only meetings unless non-delegate constituents are also allowed to attend.  In short, we desperately need people to run as delegates who will demand that representatives represent their entire constituency rather than a select club of politically passionate individuals who don’t take seriously their own obligation as representatives.

We’ll start to get these things if people attend their caucus meetings and demand them of the delegates.  And we won’t get it before then.

So, let’s make the best of caucus night this year and make sure it really is about representation.

Here are some details:

Democratic Precinct Caucuses

Anyone can attend and vote, even if you are not a registered Democrat.

Precinct caucus locations are available here: http://utahdemocrats.org/caucus-location-information/

Republican Precinct Caucuses

Anyone can attend, but you must be a registered Republican to run as a delegate and vote.  Registration forms will be available at the caucuses if you want to register there.

Precinct caucus locations currently not available, but will be available soon at: http://utgop.org/

 

Jon Huntsman – A Case of Style Obscuring the Substance?

John Huntsman Announces Bid For Presidency At NJ's Liberty State Park

Thus far, in the continual carousel of GOP frontrunners, we’ve had Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, the fixture, Mitt Romney.  Tim Pawlenty ran out of money and dropped out too early to have his day in the sun, Ron Paul is the guy a few people love and the rest of us like from a distance, and Rick Santorum has fallen victim to “fighting the last second-to-last war” syndrome — everything out of his mouth seems tailor made for 2004.

But what about Jon Huntsman?  When is it his turn as King of the Mountain?  Indeed, a Chicago Tribune article came out last week asking this very question:  ”Why Not Jon Huntsman?”  Here’s a guy with a great domestic governing record, consistent fiscal conservative credentials, no health care reform baggage (he was a market solutions guy in Utah), and the only significant foreign policy experience of *any* GOP candidate or wannabe candidate (Christie, Ryan, Daniels, Jindal, and Barbour included).  So what’s taking so long for the GOP to embrace him?

Well, he did have that moment on climate change.  And he supports civil unions for same-sex couples.  Oh, and there was that bit about being Obama’s ambassador to China.  These are the conventional reasons people disqualify him.  But I don’t buy any of them.  I mean, remember, Rick Perry mandates vaccines and opposes “heartless” immigration policy, Newt wants to send your children to work as janitors, Mitt passed Obamacare lite in Massachusetts — and they’ve all been embraced by voters for a time.  Indeed, Huntsman’s break with the orthodoxy are really pretty minor.

No, there’s something more at play here, and I read an article a few days ago that I think hits it right on the head:  ”Huntsman:  The Candidate Killed by Style.”  Here’s a quote:

Huntsman seems to muster more animosity toward his fellow candidates than Obama, making him seem like an outsider to many conservatives.   But again, chastising Rick Perry and Mitt Romney for bickering, is not an issue of substance…it is an issue of style.

But let me be clear about this…Jon Huntsman has contributed to the stylistic cross upon which his campaign has been crucified.  From his overly thought out “H” logo…to his hipster motorcycle ads…to his snarky jokes on the debate stage…to his daughters’ SNL-style spoof of Herman Cain’s smoking ad…Jon Huntsman is playing the presidential version of a mean girl.  Everything is calculated for effect.  Everything filtered through “cool”.  And it comes off as condescending.

Some, like my friend SE Cupp, would say that Huntsman stands to the left of the Republican Party on many big issues such as civil unions and foreign policy. And I would say, first that there is a great debate taking place on the right about both of these issues. But…I truthfully don’t think many conservative voters have judged the merits of Jon Huntsman’s positions.  I think they see a condescending man who worked for Obama and immediately dismiss him. And in a way, I don’t blame them.

The lesson for Huntsman, though, is…don’t do this.  The lesson for conservative voters is, in the words of Barry Goldwater (yes, again), “to disagree, one doesn’t have to be disagreeable.”  We should judge these candidates on their substance, not their style, because in the words of Jon Huntsman: voters “should not confuse a moderate temperament with a moderate record.”

Is Jon Huntsman’s problem that he goes around acting like he thinks knows he’s better than everyone he’s running against?  And when I say “better,” I don’t mean the typical “I’m the guy you need to do the job — not him” type of better.  I’m talking about the “you’re stupid and I’m not” type of better.  I think this is definitely part of it.

But I believe there’s even more to it than this.  After all, Huntsman didn’t start out his campaign attacking every other conservative in sight.  In fact, ironically, he started out with a pledge of civility.  He went into attack mode because he couldn’t get any traction.

No, Jon Huntsman, despite being a solid conservative, often acts a bit like the liberal elite that conservatives distrust.  Everything about him says “intellectual”–and more the Obama type of intellectual than the Gingrich type of intellectual.  And when you combine that with the fact that, during his campaign, Huntsman has run around like he’s trying to save the Republican Party from itself — you don’t have to stretch far to see why conservative primary voters may have been reluctant to embrace him.

No matter what his record, Jon Huntsman just doesn’t seem like a conservative to many of the voters that matter.  And I worry that until he adjusts his style a little bit that reality may not change, which will be too bad for those Republicans, like me, who really like the guy and honestly believe the Republican Party needs a bit of a course correction.

I, for one, am still hoping that Huntsman gets his chance.  Because I think Republicans who take a hard look at him will really like what they see.

For example, take a listen to this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Utah Redistricting, Part Deux

utah-capitol-slider

The special session to set the state and congressional legislative boundaries in Utah for the next ten years kicks off this morning up at the state capitol building.  The outcome of the legislative session is likely a foregone conclusion, although there remains a small chance that the currently proposed map — Sumsion_06_Modified_A — will be moderated based on pressure from Governor Herbert.  I doubt it.  Governor Herbert has shown little, if any, will to stand up to our state legislative representatives in the past absent extraordinary public outcry (even then it is an apologetic effort), and there’s no reason to believe he’ll do so now.

I’ve said before that I don’t like the option that’s currently on the table.  Rather than go into detail about my specific reasons, this editorial from the Salt Lake Tribune covers things pretty well.

But I do want to say a couple things on my own.

[adsenseyu2]

Redistricting is a political activity in which both sides pursue political goals.  Both the Republican and Democratic parties are doing what they are doing in the current redistricting debate primarily (if not exclusively) in an attempt to strengthen their chances of success in coming elections.  Despite what I’m about to say, there isn’t an obvious villan or an angel in this redistricting drama, just normal, self-interested, political actors.  Both sides are doing what they feel they need to do to ensure their survival.

But, for all the reasons I, and many others have outlined before, redistricting is important, and the citizens of Utah deserve better than we’re getting this time.  And, given the political realities here in Utah, we won’t get it without some forbearance and perspective — call it statesmanship if you like — from our Republican representatives.  The onus is on them because they are the ones with all the power in this political drama.  It wouldn’t take too much — just a handful of Republican representatives who stand up to Republican leadership today and acknowledge that the proposed congressional map for Utah is drawn for the specific purpose of unfairly consolidating the political power of an already dominant party and demand that things be done more fairly.

Actions always have consequences, some that are intended and others that aren’t anticipated when the decision to act is made.  Funny things often happen on the way to the forum.  And I believe that, if the Republican Party is determined to continue on its current course in Utah — a course where nearly every message it sends to the citizens who comprise its members (and those who do not) is that “we don’t care what you think because we know we don’t have to” — its statewide political dominance will significantly recede.  There is a big problem in our state when every reference to public opinion is followed with the necessary caveat, “But it doesn’t matter what the people think unless the Republican state delegates feel the same way.”

Despite a record of fiscal responsibility and generally-good management, the Utah Republican Party and our Republican representatives cannot assume that the people of Utah will continue to tolerate and embrace, in perpetuity, a party in which the vast majority of its voters feel ignored because 3,500 state delegates make nearly every electoral decision of consequence and where the voice of the opposition is purposefully diluted to the point it has no consequence.  If it stubbornly persists in maintaining and extending a system of political dominance with little regard to principles of fairness, meaningful representation, or the opinions of its non-delegate supporters, its runs the real risk that a number of its members will turn away and seek alternatives.  There are legitimate alternative perspectives for voters as well as demographic shifts underway that could aid such a transition.  The Republican Party cannot take the people of Utah for granted forever.

 

Huntsman – America from 10,000 Miles and Another Interesting Soundbyte

OK, so the introductory videos were weird and the “America from 10,000 miles” line seemed particularly strange at the time.  But I really liked these little video clips.  What do you think about what Huntsman has to say, and what (if anything) do these cliips tell us about Huntsman?

Written by for Utah Political Summary.

 

Dominant Party Democracy — South Africa and Utah

capetown-2-feature

I spent two years in South Africa.  I was there from 1996 through 1998, which was a fascinating time be in the Rainbow Nation — it was right at the end of the transition from Apartheid to full “one man one vote” democracy.  It’s probably fair to say that the transition began in earnest with Mandela’s release in 1990 and ended in 1998 when the ANC (then led by Thabo Mbeki) retained political power in fully-open, fair elections as Mandela left office.  During my time in South Africa, I watched with interest (and concern) the way the African National Congress (“ANC”) dominated the national and local political scene and formed some rather strong opinions about dominant party democracy, which have remained with me as I returned to the United States and became more involved in American domestic politics.

[Continue Reading...]

Republican Debate Highlights

Highlights from the New Hampshire Republican candidates debate: Santorum, Bachman, Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Pawlenty, and Cain.

What do you think? Who won? Is there a viable Republican candidate out there right now?

Some Thoughts on the Utah Caucus System

utah-capitol-slider

A little while ago, I attended a “Meet the Candidates” event sponsored by the Republican Women of Northern Utah designed to introduce state delegates to the candidates for Davis County Republican Party leadership positions in advance of the county organizing convention on April 22, 2011.  The meeting was generally what you would expect: conventional,  uncontroversial, and therefore largely uninteresting, though I did think a couple of the candidates distinguished themselves (no, I won’t say who, because I’m not a delegate and am therefore (almost) totally excluded from the process).[Continue Reading...]